HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments SPECIAL MEETING - Closed SessionNovember 18, 2019, BLT Closed Session Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees (BLT) agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item IV.A. Discuss The Library Services Director’s Appointment,
Employment, and Evaluation of Performance (Government Code §
54957)
I am pleased to see the Board of Library Trustees taking seriously its responsibility under Part B of
its Shared Governance agreement with the City Manager dated November 22, 2002, to conduct an
annual performance evaluation of the Library Director, and presumably to appoint someone to
share its conclusions with the City Manager (see BLT Manual, Tab IV).
It should be noted that while California Government Code Section 54957(b) allows that evaluation
to be conducted out of public view, it does not require that. Moreover, although the agreement
refers to the evaluation being based on a (presumably written) “performance program,” the closed
session is not the place for developing that document. The closed session is for evaluating the
Director’s managerial ability to execute goals, not to set the goals. In particular, it is not a place for
the Board to privately negotiate a vision for the library’s future with its Director. That is supposed to
be done in public.
As a model, I would suggest to the Board the procedure used by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District
(which I also monitor, as I live in their service area). Each year, the President of the CMSD Board
(the equivalent of the BLT Chair) develops with the General Manager (the equivalent of the
Director) a set of goals for the year that are refined by the full Board at a public meeting. At the end
of the year the privately discuss his managerial successes and failures in meeting those goals, and
publicly develop a new set of goals for the coming year. See, for example, their March 28, 2019,
agenda, in which as Item B.11 they met in closed session to evaluate their General Manager’s
execution of the previous year’s goals and as Item G.3 they publicly discussed, and invited public
input on, a set of goals for the General Manager to achieve in the coming year. Finally, as Item J.1,
they, again with public input, considered revisions to the GM’s contract, with compensation
adjustments based on his success or failure in executing the publicly agreed-upon goals.
I am not entirely sure why the evaluation would be held in private if the employee did not object to
it being held in public, but I think this approach provides a good mix of privacy and transparency.
As an example of a goal, if the BLT had a concern about the rate of turnover among library
employees, it could set a goal of reducing turnover in the following year by some stated
percentage. Or, as another example, if replacement of the Balboa Branch library (or the creation of
a new branch elsewhere in an expanding area of the city) is not in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program, and the Board thinks it should be, it could set a goal of getting it on the list in the next
year.
1 Note: the CMSD agenda announces its Board will be meeting in closed session solely to discuss the GM’s
performance evaluation. The BLT agenda, by contrast, suggests the Board may be considering terminating
the Director’s appointment or employment. I trust the inclusion of those legal possibilities for a closed session
was inadvertent.